So she sings the anthem in a modified way, people don't like it and ask that she be asked to perform it in a more traditional fashion. Said people are then accused (quietly) of racism. So, is it racist?
A couple of things about my personal take on this: I typically prefer a more traditional take on the anthem. It's a song that I feel shouldn't be 'covered' or however else you want to describe it. The fact that a modified version of the song is a version I don't find enjoyable to listen to is not racist - even if that version happens to be performed by a person of different skin color than myself (I have heard modified versions from white and black people that I did not like). I cannot understand why it's so automatic to link race into something like this. 'I don't like the way you sing that song' is not racist. I don't like country music. At all. White people, predominantly, perform country tunes. I'm white. Does my dislike of country music and the style of voice typically used in it make me racist against whites? Meh, I hate this ****.
All that said, I don't find this particular version all that objectionable. I mean, I can see why some would consider it too modified but I didn't. I read the article and then listened and I was epecting something radically different from the traditional tune and found, instead, a definitely modified but still close to the original rendition sung by a young lady with a damned decent voice. While it's not exactly my cup of tea as far as anthem style is concerned, I'd not have even thought to voice a complaint - whether to officials at the school or even just my buddies around me. It's just not that out there.
(normal version)
Y'know, if that girl's version of it wasn't 'traditional enough", then I don't think anybody in the history of the Superbowl has ever sung the "traditional" version.
Also, the claim that her version is disrespectful to fallen soldiers is completely absurd. How is it disrespectful?
If it counts for anything I didn't like her version at all either and like Jimi Hendrix's better, althought I prefer the original. I'm not a fan of re-takes in general.
When your national anthem is a poem (Francis Scott Key's "Defence of Fort McHenry") set to the tune of a British drinking song ("To Anecreon in Heaven"), then you really don't have much to complain about if someone decides to sing it "non-traditionally".
Whatever. People complaining about it are being over-sensitive. Don't know if the people that called 'em racist are right.
Personally I hate any version of the anthem that includes things like:
OOooooOOOOoooooooOOOOooooooooHHHHHH say can you seeEEEEeeeeEEEEeeee......
or
.....by the dawns earlyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyy LiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIght.
Or anything along those lines and I'm going to come right out and say it, it's usually blacks that sing it that way. And when whites sing it that way, they're trying to sound black.
Boooooooooo!!!
My Dad hated that stuff too because of the military and I guess I got it from him.
Edit:
PS.
I didn't read the article or watch the video simply because when they do that stuff during sporting events I usually mute it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean that I have a right to tell people how they should sing it. And if I don't want to hear it I don't have to listen.
What I meant is I have a problem with any rendition of the National Anthem that includes several changes in pitch during a single word of the song. Usually these versions make the song about 5-10 minutes longer than it should take and to me PERSONALLY it sounds awful.
Useless fact: Even tho "The Star Spangled Banner" has 4 verses, I've never heard it sung in it's entirety.
I find myself wondering if this need by singers to "personalize" the national anthem, and people complaining about it, is a uniquely American thing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1fhg7YcKJE&NR=1...
Well, that version finally sounds like an anthem!
(though I still think it lacks "kick")
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1fhg7YcKJE&NR=1...
Well, that version finally sounds like an anthem!
(though I still think it lacks "kick")
Eh, as the others have mentioned, it wasn't originally written as a national anthem - it's a poem set to the tune of a British drinking song. I don't recall exactly off the top of my head, but I believe it was at least fifty or sixty years after it was written that it was adopted as the national anthem.
Edit: Yep, written in 1816 and not adopted as the official national anthem until 1931... It's actually something like the third or fourth song to be considered the "unofficial" national anthem before it was finally ratified as such by Congress.
Well, that version finally sounds like an anthem!
It certainly has the lack of "being interesting to listen to" that goes with most anthems... I can somewhat imagine people wanting to give their own twist to it.
(though I still think it lacks "kick")
Ok. Try this one instead. It's performed by The U.S. Army Field Band.
Ok. Try this one instead. It's performed by The U.S. Army Field Band.
Hmm, I like it even more; though I'm kinda biased, because I grew up with an anthem that was specifically written for soldiers who needed hope to regain independence...
Hence it's very militaristic tone and marching pace.
It certainly has the lack of "being interesting to listen to" that goes with most anthems... I can somewhat imagine people wanting to give their own twist to it.
Oh, some anthems are real good pieces of music!
La Marseilaise sounds very good sung by Mireile Mathieu.
Scotland the Brave, while not an official anthem, is very uplifting even in instrumental version.
While it's not as upbeat as the above mentioned, God Save The Queen has certain charm. The British wouldn't exist with anything other as their anthem.
The alternative Polish anthem probably wouldn't help us in relations with EU...
And, much like in Disney musicals, the best musical number has been written for the villain
